Oculus Remains Silent After Community, Dev Backlash Over Luckey Funding Anti-Hillary Memes

[Virtual_Singularity]

The problem is that you and others use words like "dangerous" to describe presidents when in fact they are only a very small part of the government and we have a checks and balance system in place. In addition, this is just a simple case of nobody keeping an open mind, which you portray by your statement "Anyone who bothered to do objective research" which implies that you did and Jeff Fx didn't, making Jeff Fx stupid. Really all of this is idiotic. But anyway that's not what this thread is about. It's about two companies that have a fake kitten fight to draw attention to themselves. And it's working seeing how well this thread is exploding.

I actually wasn't referring to a dangerous president, but a dangerous woman who may become one. And I totally agree, this article and our replies should have no commentary on the candidates, but seeing how some already "went there", then a balanced reply isn't unreasonable. Far as the presidency goes, I wish I could agree, that it's just a small part of things. In fact, since 2001, the executive branch and office of the president has only grown more powerful, setting precedents for the future, most especially under the current administration.

There have been more executive orders issued by this administration than were issued by the last 6, combined. Some have been simply termed as "memoranda" by the press. Researching the candidates for oneself is vital if one is to determine a lesser evil, bringing it up isn't to make anyone look stupid. If people refuse to see the reality of the choice we have by gathering what info there is about it, then would it not be fair to say they've formed their opinions out of ignorance rather than factual information?

Btw, I did end up taking a glance at the memes on that site, not every single one, but I spent a couple minutes or so. What I saw was anti-Hillary memes, and a froggy looking critter of some sort.

 

[turkey3_scratch]

I actually wasn't referring to a dangerous president, but a dangerous woman who may become one. And I totally agree, this article and our replies should have no commentary on the candidates, but seeing how some already "went there", then a balanced reply isn't unreasonable. Far as the presidency goes, I wish I could agree, that it's just a small part of things. In fact, since 2001, the executive branch and office of the president has only grown more powerful, setting precedents for the future, most especially under the current administration. There have been more executive orders issued by this administration than were issued by the last 6, combined. Researching the candidates for oneself is vital if one is to determine a lesser evil, bringing it up isn't to make anyone look stupid. If people refuse to see the reality of the choice we have by gathering what info there is about it, then would it not be fair to say they've formed their opinions out of ignorance rather than factual information?

Btw, I did end up taking a glance at the memes on that site, not every single one, but I spent a couple minutes or so. What I saw was anti-Hillary memes, and a froggy looking critter of some sort.

Objective research on candidates is really hard. Anything you read on the Internet might not be true, or it might be exaggerated. That's why I listened to the debates - it's what they are saying, not what other people are saying about them. Kind of like how we eat some spiders in our sleep every year. Everyone thinks it is true, but it was a test done to see how quickly false information could spread as truth on the Internet. All it takes is for one website to make up something about Trump or Hillary, and then everyone immediately believes it. This is why I only listen to first-hand sources, the candidates themselves. Any author is going to be biased on the Internet. There's a lot of false information out there so many people believe is true, but the difficulty is knowing what is false or true.

I don't know why making Hillary memes is an expensive process either. I can make a billion of them for free in a matter of minutes.

 

[Joe Black]

Seriously though... How crap were those memes that they had to be funded? oO

Nubs

 

[cinergy]

So I guess I won't be buying soundstage products ever since they are supporting Hillary.

 

[rostrow416]

Ok if they were pro Hillary memes no would have said a thing. But since they were anti Hillary, well that's a problem.

 

[cats_Paw]

Not that VR was getting any trackion anyway.... Unfortunate but this is what happens when you dont make the correct market study and invest in the HYPE of VR. The political news are the only news on VR so far after the sales have basically frozen.

No wonder thou, with the content available for play on VR who in their right mind would spend 2000+ dollars? Its gimicks/tech demos, not games.

 

[xyriin]

...
For example, in the claim that his casinos segregated black workers from a racist mafia member, there was no evidence Trump himself did that. I googled the situation and it seems the casino management did that without Trump actually getting involved. Trump does have a problem with generalization and stereotyping people, but that is ignorance, not racism. For example, when Trump said illegal Mexican immigrants were criminals and rapists (he was referring to illegals if you actually read the transcript of that speech, and not all Mexican immigrants), that was a stupid generalization. It is no different than Hillary calling certain African Americans "super predators" - not racism, just ignorance.

For Trump's "stop and frisk" comment - that is not racism, considering both Democrats and Republicans have supported such policies. Martin O'Malley, the former Democrat mayor of Baltimore and one of the Democrat's presidential candidates, also advocated stop and frisk policies. When he was mayor, he instituted harsh police crackdowns on the black population of Baltimore based on profiling (I live in MD). Nobody has accused him of being racist.
...

If you own a business or other establishment where racism is occurring you are responsible. You can delegate authority but not responsibility. In the case of Trump he has had multiple businesses with lawsuits over civil liberties issues. If it were a one-off then it could be easily explained but when you have hundreds of instances you begin to wonder if the real problem isn't a culture being fostered by the owner who is ultimately responsible. That said, the real question should be if he is tacitly supporting racism.

As for "stop and frisk" since when does multiple people pushing the same bad idea make it ok? There have been plenty of people who supported slavery, segregation, disenfranchisement of minorities/women, and even genocide. That NEVER makes it alright, it's still wrong.

As someone mentioned above there is freedom of speech, not freedom of consequences. You can talk about anything you like with freedom of speech, however any action has consequences. If your political views and/or financing support people that your customer base doesn't like then you're going to have to face the consequences of that choice. In this particular case Facebook/Oculus will simply have to deal with the fallout of one of their employees. They can choose to retain him and deal with the consequences or fire him and try to reverse discussion. The only real problem with this whole scenario would be if the Daily Beast report were 100% fabricated which doesn't seem to be case considering the evidence so far including the screenshots.

As for the developers and customers they can exercise their freedom of speech by boycotting Oculus if they wish to which is their right. The consequence for the developers of is risking limiting their platform availability. For customers they risk missing out on any exclusive Oculus titles.

No one should get upset about anyone exercising their freedom of speech or having to deal with the associated consequences.

 

[WyomingKnott]

"litany of facts, citations, articles, and accounts proving [racism against Trump]..."
Post some. Let's not just suggest that it does. Let's see it.

Note
A member did post such a litany on the first page. This link may pinpoint it for you: http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/id-3194665/oculus-remains-silent-community-dev-backlash-luckey-funding-anti-hillary-memes.html#18639218 .

Unless and until someone refutes that those links are concrete evidence, I will remove "Yeah, show me some" posts as being irrelevant, since the showing has occurred.

 

[xyriin]

...
In fact, since 2001, the executive branch and office of the president has only grown more powerful, setting precedents for the future, most especially under the current administration.

There have been more executive orders issued by this administration than were issued by the last 6, combined. Some have been simply termed as "memoranda" by the press. Researching the candidates for oneself is vital if one is to determine a lesser evil, bringing it up isn't to make anyone look stupid. If people refuse to see the reality of the choice we have by gathering what info there is about it, then would it not be fair to say they've formed their opinions out of ignorance rather than factual information?
...

I find it hard to take anything you say seriously or as fact when you don't do the research you claim is necessary.

Take executive orders for example. Not by what the press says but instead by actual orders signed in...
Obama 235 (31.3 per year)
Bush 291 (36.4 per year)
Clinton 364 (45.5 per year)
Bush 166 (41.5 per year)
Reagan 381 (47.6 per year)
Carter 320 (80.0 per year)
Ford 169 (69.1 per year)

So you didn't do the research and spread lies and misinformation to everyone. The FACTS say that Obama issued executive orders at a LOWER rate than the any of the last six presidents (much less the last six combined). In fact you have to go back to Grover Cleveland's first term (1893-1897) to find a lower rate. That was over a century ago!

I do agree with one of your statements though:
If people refuse to see the reality of the choice we have by gathering what info there is about it, then would it not be fair to say they've formed their opinions out of ignorance rather than factual information?

 

[therealduckofdeath]

Liberalism is fascism.

Liberalism is on the other end of the spectrum from Fascism. Fascism is what Republicans are pushing toward. I think you meant Socialism.

You know the debate is broken by racist trolls when liberalism is considered a radical view like their own fascist ideologies.

 

[Virtual_Singularity]

Objective research on candidates is really hard. Anything you read on the Internet might not be true, or it might be exaggerated.

Not nearly as hard as some may think. There's a wealth of info and testimony by various credible individuals and orgs that have solid and well documented info, freely available to see on the net or YT or what have you. Wikileaks is but one of many credible sources. There are ex-secret service and others who have plenty to say. Caring enough to take the time to look beyond the MSM, and even with all the maneuvering by google to try and keep negative entries re HC in check, the pertinent info is still there. Choosing articles and presentations that waste the least time and stick to the facts the most, as well as taking the time to confirm the information can take some time, but it's time well spent if you actually learn something.

Debates aren't nearly as useful as info one can glean by taking the time to objectively research. Debates are limited by time, are constantly harped on by parroting talking heads afterwards, and are often quite useless. I doubt tonight's debate will be useless, but just saying. It's far more constructive to research the issue objectively, regardless where it may take one and regardless of whether they'll like what they find or not.

 

[Virtual_Singularity]

...
In fact, since 2001, the executive branch and office of the president has only grown more powerful, setting precedents for the future, most especially under the current administration.

There have been more executive orders issued by this administration than were issued by the last 6, combined. Some have been simply termed as "memoranda" by the press. Researching the candidates for oneself is vital if one is to determine a lesser evil, bringing it up isn't to make anyone look stupid. If people refuse to see the reality of the choice we have by gathering what info there is about it, then would it not be fair to say they've formed their opinions out of ignorance rather than factual information?
...

I find it hard to take anything you say seriously or as fact when you don't do the research you claim is necessary.

Take executive orders for example. Not by what the press says but instead by actual orders signed in...
Obama 235 (31.3 per year)
Bush 291 (36.4 per year)
Clinton 364 (45.5 per year)
Bush 166 (41.5 per year)
Reagan 381 (47.6 per year)
Carter 320 (80.0 per year)
Ford 169 (69.1 per year)

So you didn't do the research and spread lies and misinformation to everyone. The FACTS say that Obama issued executive orders at a LOWER rate than the any of the last six presidents (much less the last six combined). In fact you have to go back to Grover Cleveland's first term (1893-1897) to find a lower rate. That was over a century ago!

I do agree with one of your statements though:
If people refuse to see the reality of the choice we have by gathering what info there is about it, then would it not be fair to say they've formed their opinions out of ignorance rather than factual information?

Here's an article for you, by a mainstream media outlet no less, that usually is about as supportive as the rest toward the administration. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/12/16/obama-presidential-memoranda-executive-orders/20191805/ That's the thing. There has been a lot of effort to put that assertion to rest. Using your table, its easy to believe "well, those must be the facts". But when one takes into consideration the memoranda, its an utterly different story, isnt it.

"Executive orders are numbered — the most recent, Executive Order 13683, modified three previous executive orders. Memoranda are not numbered, not indexed and, until recently, difficult to quantify."

"There are subtle differences. Executive orders are numbered; memoranda are not. Memoranda are always published in the Federal Register after proclamations and executive orders. And under Executive Order 11030, signed by President Kennedy in 1962, an executive order must contain a "citation of authority," saying what law it's based on. Memoranda have no such requirement."

Memoranda, "policy directives" and whatever else carries the same weight as EO's but are called something else, are simply EO's by another name, but far less transparent and noticeable to the public in general. This administration has pushed through much of its business using EO's and memoranda. The fact remains the administration has taken unilateral measures that have been perceived by many to be unconstitutional, using EO's and memoranda, more than the last 6 admins combined.

 

[Jeff Fx]

Objective research on candidates is really hard. Anything you read on the Internet might not be true, or it might be exaggerated.

Not nearly as hard as some may think. There's a wealth of info and testimony by various credible individuals and orgs that have solid and well documented info, freely available to see on the net or YT or what have you. Wikileaks is but one of many credible sources. There are ex-secret service and others who have plenty to say. Caring enough to take the time to look beyond the MSM, and even with all the maneuvering by google to try and keep negative entries re HC in check, the pertinent info is still there. Choosing articles and presentations that waste the least time and stick to the facts the most, as well as taking the time to confirm the information can take some time, but it's time well spent if you actually learn something.

Debates aren't nearly as useful as info one can glean by taking the time to objectively research. Debates are limited by time, are constantly harped on by parroting talking heads afterwards, and are often quite useless. I doubt tonight's debate will be useless, but just saying. It's far more constructive to research the issue objectively, regardless where it may take one and regardless of whether they'll like what they find or not.

Wikileaks has made it abundantly clear that they are not a reliable source. When the conspiracy nuts started pretending that Clinton was wearing an earpiece at the recent Trump/Clinton TV event, Wikileaks Tweeted out of context info on Hillary wearing an earpiece. A little research showed that that was at the UN, where you have to wear an earpiece for translation. I wouldn't be surprised if the extremists at Wikileaks are intentionally trying to harm America by getting a clueless, narcissistic, demagogue elected.

 

[turkey3_scratch]

As I said I don't trust ANY site. I think of myself - if I was running for president, what objective research would be done on me? And nonetheless, how would ANY of that relate to how well I do in precedence? You can have someone who is super racist and rude, but they may be a good leader. You never know. All I care about is what they'll do in office, not that they did whatever to their cousins mother's friend 10 years ago.

 

[Dark Lord of Tech]

Rumor has it she changed her hairstyle to hide the earpiece for tonight's debate.

 

[chicofehr]

More CEO should do this kind of stuff. I think its funny. People who get upset about this are probably no fun at parties. If I had his money I would be doing the same thing. Gotta enjoy the money somehow. Buying stuff gets boring fast.

 

[Virtual_Singularity]

Objective research on candidates is really hard. Anything you read on the Internet might not be true, or it might be exaggerated.

Not nearly as hard as some may think. There's a wealth of info and testimony by various credible individuals and orgs that have solid and well documented info, freely available to see on the net or YT or what have you. Wikileaks is but one of many credible sources. There are ex-secret service and others who have plenty to say. Caring enough to take the time to look beyond the MSM, and even with all the maneuvering by google to try and keep negative entries re HC in check, the pertinent info is still there. Choosing articles and presentations that waste the least time and stick to the facts the most, as well as taking the time to confirm the information can take some time, but it's time well spent if you actually learn something.

Debates aren't nearly as useful as info one can glean by taking the time to objectively research. Debates are limited by time, are constantly harped on by parroting talking heads afterwards, and are often quite useless. I doubt tonight's debate will be useless, but just saying. It's far more constructive to research the issue objectively, regardless where it may take one and regardless of whether they'll like what they find or not.

Wikileaks has made it abundantly clear that they are not a reliable source. When the conspiracy nuts started pretending that Clinton was wearing an earpiece at the recent Trump/Clinton TV event, Wikileaks Tweeted out of context info on Hillary wearing an earpiece. A little research showed that that was at the UN, where you have to wear an earpiece for translation. I wouldn't be surprised if the extremists at Wikileaks are intentionally trying to harm America by getting a clueless, narcissistic, demagogue elected.

Wikileaks aren't extremists, first and foremost. You can choose to ignore the incredible amount information gleaned over the raw data released by the org over the years, and its your prerogative to be the current administration's or HC's biggest fan, apologist, or critic for that matter. But one discrediting (and recent) tweet made by WL can by no means whatsoever render the vast majority of facts brought to light by their work over the years "tainted", much as I'm sure some would love it to be. It's quite possible that it was a stunt, to see how rabid some supporters would become about a false story about an earpiece, while conveniently ignoring the fact that it can't hope to compare to the real problems at hand.

Because honestly, who cares about a tweet about an earpiece? What's an earpiece compared to the many questions and possible problems with both her physical and mental health, or the concerning episodes re health that have been documented in the past months on film, commented on by doctors and experts, and allegedly refused to be faced honestly by the candidate? What's a discrediting tweet about an earpiece worth compared to the practically infinite damning evidence about the numerous scandals that continue to surround this woman, both past and present?

Consider also, early in August, Assange made a statement regarding evidence to be released which would ensure the conviction of HC. On August 21, there was an attempted break-in at his quarters at the Ecuadoran Embassy, by an intruder who scaled the wall, a story which was covered by the MSM as well. It's worth consideration because the context of time is important, especially being so close to the election. The break in attempt and its timing inevitably result in speculation and the perception of intimidation or worse toward Assange, made at a politically sensitive time, a mere few months away from the election.

Last of all, Wikileaks is but one source, a significant and overall credible one, but still just one. There are plenty of others that share a wealth of information, that even the most skeptical among us would find difficult ignoring.

 

[Dark Lord of Tech]

Objective research on candidates is really hard. Anything you read on the Internet might not be true, or it might be exaggerated.

Not nearly as hard as some may think. There's a wealth of info and testimony by various credible individuals and orgs that have solid and well documented info, freely available to see on the net or YT or what have you. Wikileaks is but one of many credible sources. There are ex-secret service and others who have plenty to say. Caring enough to take the time to look beyond the MSM, and even with all the maneuvering by google to try and keep negative entries re HC in check, the pertinent info is still there. Choosing articles and presentations that waste the least time and stick to the facts the most, as well as taking the time to confirm the information can take some time, but it's time well spent if you actually learn something.

Debates aren't nearly as useful as info one can glean by taking the time to objectively research. Debates are limited by time, are constantly harped on by parroting talking heads afterwards, and are often quite useless. I doubt tonight's debate will be useless, but just saying. It's far more constructive to research the issue objectively, regardless where it may take one and regardless of whether they'll like what they find or not.

Wikileaks has made it abundantly clear that they are not a reliable source. When the conspiracy nuts started pretending that Clinton was wearing an earpiece at the recent Trump/Clinton TV event, Wikileaks Tweeted out of context info on Hillary wearing an earpiece. A little research showed that that was at the UN, where you have to wear an earpiece for translation. I wouldn't be surprised if the extremists at Wikileaks are intentionally trying to harm America by getting a clueless, narcissistic, demagogue elected.

Wikileaks aren't extremists, first and foremost. You can choose to ignore the incredible amount information gleaned over the raw data released by the org over the years, and its your prerogative to be the current administration's or HC's biggest fan, apologist, or critic for that matter. But one discrediting (and recent) tweet made by WL can by no means whatsoever render the vast majority of facts brought to light by their work over the years "tainted", much as I'm sure some would love it to be. It's quite possible that it was a stunt, to see how rabid some supporters would become about a false story about an earpiece, while conveniently ignoring the fact that it can't hope to compare to the real problems at hand.

Because honestly, who cares about a tweet about an earpiece? What's an earpiece compared to the many questions and possible problems with both her physical and mental health, or the concerning episodes re health that have been documented in the past months on film, commented on by doctors and experts, and allegedly refused to be faced honestly by the candidate? What's a discrediting tweet about an earpiece worth compared to the practically infinite damning evidence about the numerous scandals that continue to surround this woman, both past and present?

Consider also, early in August, Assange made a statement regarding evidence to be released which would ensure the conviction of HC. On August 21, there was an attempted break-in at his quarters at the Ecuadoran Embassy, by an intruder who scaled the wall, a story which was covered by the MSM as well. It's worth consideration because the context of time is important, especially being so close to the election. The break in attempt and its timing inevitably result in speculation and the perception of intimidation or worse toward Assange, made at a politically sensitive time, a mere few months away from the election.

Last of all, Wikileaks is but one source, a significant and overall credible one, but still just one. There are plenty of others that share a wealth of information, that even the most skeptical among us would find difficult ignoring.

Right on good info.

 

[turkey3_scratch]

What's an earpiece compared to the many questions and possible problems with both her physical and mental health

Oh that's just a bunch of bull crap. Firstly, the VP takes over if the president dies. Secondly who cares? Her health stuff has been probably the stupidest thing ever to talk about.

 

[Dark Lord of Tech]

You elect that person to be the president not the VP , health is a huge concern always , even when McCaine ran it was an issue. Amercia doesn't want to elect a Drone to be in charge for a short time , they are putting this person in charge for at least 4 years as President.

 

[scolaner]

I google nimblerichman reddit posts and all I could find was anti-Hillary posts and posts saying he supports Trump. I didn't find anything racist or bigoted in the actual posts. Am i missing something here? Anyone have links to actual racist posts?

I can't find them either and I spent several hours last night browsing the various internet backwaters where you would expect such things to be out in force.
.

According to the Daily Beast, many of those were deleted--"scrubbed" I think is the term they used--even as they were writing their article.

We therefore can't prove whether the racist/bigoted memes were made or not. But that is the allegation that has led to the backlash.

 

[cradlepointman69]

From looking at the "companies" listed in this article that have thrown a social temper tantrum, I would say that Mr. Luckey doesn't have much to worry about.